Contact
I welcome your feedback and comments on any issues relating to Burlingame. Go to the Contact form to send your message. I will get back to you promptly.
Report a Power Outage
It is critical for us to be able to provide PG&E with an accurate report of outages and their impact on our community. If you have experienced an outage, please enter the details in the Power Outage Form. You can also use this form to report tree trimming and customer service problems.
Did you know that the same underground gas pipeline that exploded in San Bruno also runs through Burlingame along Skyline Boulevard? Soon after the tragedy in September 2010, our city breathed a sigh of relief when Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) told us that none of our pipelines were in the "top 100" as far as risk assessment.
See a timeline showing Burlingame’s efforts to assure pipeline safety.
By early 2011, however, when newspapers began probing PG&E’s inspection records, I began to have doubts. As Mayor, I asked PG&E to come to a City Council to report on the status of the pipelines in our city. PG&E made that presentation on March 8, 2011. I was struck by how little PG&E knew about the condition of pipelines in our city, and a week later I fired off a letter to PG&E asking for a "foot-by-foot inspection" of all underground gas lines in our city within the next 90 days, a detailed explanation of steps PG&E would take to assure that gas would be turned off promptly in the event of a failure and other safeguards.
It took PG&E several months to reply. In the meantime, news reports were calling attention to possible problems with Line 109, a pipeline that runs parallel to Line 132 along Skyline Boulevard. In a letter dated June 28, I asked PG&E to expedite its inspection of LIne 132 and to also inspect Line 109. The utility’s letter of June 30 noted that Line 132 would be hydrostatically tested during the summer and that validation of gas pipeline records was still in progress.
I addressed the California Public Utilities Commission on July 14, asking for the CPUC’s assistance in making sure PG&E inspected both lines. I also asked that the CPUC work with PG&E to move both lines to safer, less populated areas west of Highway 280. PG&E replied to my letter of June 28 later that day, refusing test Line 109. I immediately asked PG&E to show us inspection records for the line.
On August 23, I reviewed those records with our city manager and public works director. PG&E’s records show that hydrostatic testing was done on Line 109 in 1964 after the entire portion of the line in Burlingame was replaced that year. The utility replaced sections of Line 109 in 1992 and did hydrostatic testing of those sections again that year. A report on that meeting and a copy of a summary PG&E prepared were sent to residents via the city’s e-newsletter and can be viewed on the city’s website. We leafletted the Skyline area to inform neighbors about an open house on pipeline safety that PG&E had scheduled on September 14. More than 20 residents attended that meeting and asked questions for more than an hour. On September 26, I attended an all-day hearing that the California Public Utilities Commission held to gather input on ways emergency responders can work more closely with utlities to improve pipeline safety.
On October 16, I asked PG&E which plastic pipelines will be replaced in Burlingame. Our PG&E rep said he would share the replacement plan as soon as possible.
On October 21, PG&E reported that hydrostatic testing of Line 132 was nearly complete, and so far no flaws have been found.